GreenLeft: GM Push Vilifies Organics

[Guest guest]

Comments?

Misty L. Trepke

http://health.

 

GM push vilifies organics

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37243

Annolies Truman

14 July 2007

 

Recent attacks on the organic food industry are about discrediting

it to soften up the public to accept genetically modified (GM)

crops, Dr Maggie Lilith of the Conservation Council of WA and the

Say No to GMO campaign told Green Left Weekly.

 

 

" The spate of recent claims that organic food is riskier and linked

to health scares seems to have come from proponents of GM and those

with a vested interest " , said Lilith, who is also a member of the

Fremantle Organic Growers Association. " The claims about the safety

of organic foods are unfounded and aim to spread misinformation to

the public. "

 

On April 12, a syndicated piece by Bettina Arndt entitled " Organic

myths pose real risks to health " appeared in newspapers across

Australia. The article is a savage attack on the organic food

industry and consumers who choose its products.

 

" The organic food industry is booming with ever more people deluded

into thinking that paying two or three times more for organic food

products will provide them with healthier, safer food " , stated

Arndt.

 

In an attempt to portray organics as backward and unscientific,

Arndt quotes British Lord Dick Taverne as saying, " What is most

worrying about the whole organic product movement is the underlying

notion that scientific progress is inevitably bad and we are all

better off reverting to primitive, `natural' ways of doing things. "

 

Lilith disputes this unscientific claim. " Organic systems rely on

modern scientific understanding of ecology and soil science as well

as traditional methods of crop rotations to ensure fertility and

weed and pest control " , she said.

 

" Moreover, organic production aims to be sustainable and reduce

dependence on non-renewable resources. The soil is not depleted as

under conventional agribusiness practices. Organic produce is not

covered in toxic chemicals as no pesticides or artificial chemicals

are used. Animals are not treated with synthetic growth hormones or

drugs. "

 

Arndt also quotes Taverne glorifying GM crops: " If people were

really worried about the effects of pesticides in farming on

wildlife or human health, they should promote pest-resistant GM

crops, which reduce pesticide use … The solid scientific support for

the safety and efficiency of GM crops means nothing to blinkered

souls who trust instincts over science. "

 

Janet Grogan, a leading activist with the Say No to GMO campaign,

described Arndt's article as " a thinly veiled pro-GM rant against

organic foods " .

 

" It was misinformed and biased. Arndt cites two cases to prove the

dangers of eating organic foods, neither actually linked to

organically-derived produce. "

 

" What's more, her list of experts comes from pro-GM groups. Lord

Taverne is the chairman of the pro-GM lobby group the Association of

Sense in Science. His book was lambasted in the Guardian newspaper

as … mingling myth with fact. "

 

A month later, on May 16, an article appeared in the West

Australian, promoting the idea of growing GM cotton in the Ord River

district of northern WA and attacking organic growers.

 

A key GM scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, claimed opponents of the scheme

were largely " self-serving organic farmers and ill-informed

environmental activists " . Peacock was instrumental in developing GM

cotton while working at the CSIRO. Some 100 hectare trials of GM

cotton along the Ord have already been approved by the WA

government.

 

Lilith is scathing about Peacock's criticism. " It's the pro-GM

groups who are self-serving, interested only in making profits at

the expense of farmers and community health. Moreover, GM cotton

should be considered a Trojan horse as it leaves the door open for

other unwanted GM crops. "

 

Another attack on organics followed soon after. The May 22 edition

of the Bulletin contained an exclusive titled " The Truth About

Organic Food " . Two large photos of shopping baskets graphically

illustrate the expense of organic food over conventional.

 

Lilith contests the claim that organic food is expensive, saying, " A

lot of supermarket pre-packaged food costs far more than organic

staples. The typical household spends far more on junk food, or

alcohol, or take-aways than on fruit and vegetables. "

 

" The Bulletin article also ignores the nutritional benefits of

organic produce " , Lilith told GLW.

 

" Scientific evidence shows that fresh organic produce is more

nutritious than non-organic food, containing higher nutrient levels,

more vitamins, minerals, cancer-fighting antioxidants and enzymes. "

 

But the Bulletin article does concede " consumption of organics is

growing at 25% to 44% per year, outstripping the rise in organic

food production at 6% to 15% … in 2000, there were 7.6 million

hectares under organic management, with a value of $19m. By 2006,

that had grown to 12.3 million hectares valued at $400 million. "

 

According to Annie Kavanagh, president of the Organic Growers

Association WA, suppliers are finding it difficult to keep up with

the demand from consumers.

 

Across Australia, in addition to the 12.3 million hectares under

organic cultivation, a further 1.1 million hectares land is being

prepared for organic certification. In 2006, there were 176 listed

organic processors and producers in WA, compared to 58 in 2002. This

shows a 300% increase in four years, which reflects the increasing

demand for organic produce.

 

Perhaps this trend explains why the GM lobby is so keen to demolish

the credibility of organic agriculture.

 

 

Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717 18 July 2007.